What are Tom Curry and Bob Brigham talking about?

The Internet politics bubble continues. Tom Curry has a story on MSNBC.com that opens with this lead:

Democratic bloggers say they are beginning to transform the way political campaigns are run, pointing to their recent success in raising more than $550,000 for Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett, a Marine veteran of the Iraq war, who came within 4,000 votes of defeating Republican Jean Schmidt two weeks ago in a special election in a heavily Republican district in Ohio.

The work of such bloggers as Bob Brigham of Swingstateproject.com points toward a day when the traditional campaign -- tailored by Washington-based consultants, centered on 30-second TV ads, with fund-raising driven by Washington-based party committees -- might become obsolete.

But as Holly Martin points out on Wonkette, "campaigns require, you know, knowledge and shit." As Curry himself points out, "To win the open seat in Iowa's first congressional district next year, for example, one needs to know very place-specific details." Consultants, TV ads and local knowledge are not going away. That's know-nothing hype of the sort we saw during the Internet bubble in business. The lefty blog infrastructure is going to help liberal candidates raise more money, but it's not going to change politics as we know it.

Part of Curry's article profiles Bob Brigham of the Swing State Project:

On Monday, Brigham and his allies are launching a new political action committee (PAC) called "Leave No District Behind.”

Brigham wants the Democrats to field House candidates in every congressional district, instead of allowing dozens of districts to go uncontested as they did in last year’s campaign.

He reckons that $100,000 invested in each of the uncontested House districts would at least give the Democrats a candidate and a minimal staff.

His rationale is that Republicans in uncompetitive races were able to campaign for their colleagues rather than staying home to defend their own turf. But why divert so much time and effort into unwinnable races? It's completely idiotic.

The problem is that lefty bloggers think the Howard Dean/Paul Hackett phenomena are replicable, and they're not. No one wants to work for a loser -- or give one money. And a few hundred thousand dollars in Internet contributions does not make most uncompetitive districts winnable. Those are cold, hard facts. How much money will Bob Brigham waste before he comes to terms with them?

(For past posts on the Internet politics bubble, see here, here, here, and here.)

Comments

[talboito]

Of course people want to work for a loser.

People are more willing to work free or cheap, and more willing to give money if they cannot work.

You act like the Dean campaign attracted support only because it attracted support. People were showing up in Vermont unannounced long before he became the frontrunner.

I agree its best not to be spread too thin, but there is a great psychological benefit to at least join the fight rather than forfeit.

[kos]

Wow, are you a major league asshole.

I bet a month ago you were saying, "The Dean phenomenon isn't replicable". Now you are saying, "The Dean/Hackett phenomenon isn't replicable."

In a year, who knows how many candidates will be on your list of phenomenons that aren't replicable.